%20(1200%20x%20237%20px)%20(300%20x%2059%20px).webp)
.webp)
Richmond is gearing up for a generational change. The city’s decades-old zoning code — last overhauled in the 1970s — is being rewritten. At stake: how much density is allowed where, and who gets to live where. The proposal has a simple but powerful vision: bring mixed-use buildings, more housing near transit and commuter corridors, eliminate outdated zoning rules that rigidly separate single-family from everything else. The draft map (interactive, open to public comment) shows areas like Arthur Ashe Boulevard and Ellwood Avenue poised for change. Small apartments over shops, walkable blocks, more transportation choices. This matters especially in places long zoned exclusively for single-family homes. Those areas tend to be low-density, car-oriented, exclusionary by design (either through cost or lack of infrastructure). Richmond’s rewrite seeks to crack open those codes. But there’s pushback — neighbors concerned about character, traffic, and change. Similar fights have played out in Virginia cities like Arlington and Charlottesville. If the code passes, planners expect ripple effects: more walkable streets, stronger commercial activity along transit lines, potentially more affordable and diverse housing. But it won’t happen overnight: code overhaul processes are slow; infrastructure must catch up, and public buy-in is crucial. What makes Richmond’s effort hopeful is its transparency: the city is using interactive tools so residents can see where zoning would shift. That kind of visibility helps reduce fear of surprise, and gives people a chance to weigh in. Of course, visibility alone isn’t enough. Moving from old to new code means reconciling legacy constraints: parking, lot size, setbacks, possibly resistance in court from those wanting to preserve existing rights. For city planners and residents everywhere, Richmond is testing whether code reform can be both bold and equitable. If done well, it could reduce urban sprawl, bring housing closer to opportunity, and move the needle on affordability. If done poorly, it could deepen equity divides or simply shift burdens, not solve them.